On 3/7/2018 3:46 PM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> Hello Atul,
>
> One quick note before you start replying: please fix your email
> client, as you've been told before. Quoting has to add a quoting
> marker (the '>' character) at the beginning of the line, otherwise
> it's impossible to separate your reply from the email you're quoting.
>
> 2018-03-06, 21:06:20 +0530, Atul Gupta wrote:
>> tls_device structure to register Inline TLS drivers
>> with net/tls
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Atul Gupta
>> ---
>> include/net/tls.h | 26 ++
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/tls.h b/include/net/tls.h
>> index 4913430..9bfb91f 100644
>> --- a/include/net/tls.h
>> +++ b/include/net/tls.h
>> @@ -55,6 +55,28 @@
>> #define TLS_RECORD_TYPE_DATA0x17
>>
>> #define TLS_AAD_SPACE_SIZE 13
>> +#define TLS_DEVICE_NAME_MAX 32
> Why 32 characters?
This is considered to accommodate registering device name, should it be bigger?
>
>
>> +enum {
>> +TLS_BASE_TX,
>> +TLS_SW_TX,
>> +TLS_FULL_HW, /* TLS record processed Inline */
>> +TLS_NUM_CONFIG,
>> +};
>> +
>> +extern struct proto tls_prots[TLS_NUM_CONFIG];
> Don't break bisection. The code has to compile after every
> patch. These are already defined in net/tls/tls_main.c.
Will take care
>
>> +struct tls_device {
>> +char name[TLS_DEVICE_NAME_MAX];
> I could find only one use of it, in chtls_register_dev. Is this
> actually needed?
help to identify Inline TLS drivers registered with net/tls
>
>> +struct list_head dev_list;
>> +
>> +/* netdev present in registered inline tls driver */
>> +int (*netdev)(struct tls_device *device,
>> + struct net_device *netdev);
> I was trying to figure out what this did, because the name is really
> not explicit, and the comment doesn't make sense, but noticed it's
> never actually called.
Was used Initially, removed in last few cleanup [thanks for pointing]
>
>> +int (*feature)(struct tls_device *device);
>> +int (*hash)(struct tls_device *device, struct sock *sk);
>> +void (*unhash)(struct tls_device *device, struct sock *sk);
> I think you should add a kerneldoc comment, like all the ndo_*
> methods have.
Will take care
>
>> +};
>>
>> struct tls_sw_context {
>> struct crypto_aead *aead_send;
>> @@ -115,6 +137,8 @@ struct tls_context {
>> int (*getsockopt)(struct sock *sk, int level,
>> int optname, char __user *optval,
>> int __user *optlen);
>> +int (*hash)(struct sock *sk);
>> +void (*unhash)(struct sock *sk);
>> };
>>
>> int wait_on_pending_writer(struct sock *sk, long *timeo);
>> @@ -256,5 +280,7 @@ static inline struct tls_offload_context
>> *tls_offload_ctx(
>>
>> int tls_proccess_cmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg,
>>unsigned char *record_type);
>> +void tls_register_device(struct tls_device *device);
>> +void tls_unregister_device(struct tls_device *device);
> Prototype without implementation, please don't do that. This happens
> because you split your patchset so that each patch has all the changes
> for exactly one file.
will have declaration and definition together
>
